For example, entry into resilience involves a shift from a pathological and
bureaucratic culture (notably embodied in the relationship between TEPCO and
Japanese political powers), to a generative culture that enables the organization in
crisis to activate resilience in the best possible conditions [76]. It should be noted
that this argument refers more to general boundaries than a definition sensu stricto
of measurable organizational boundaries.
In summary, the questions of the path for entry into resilience and the definition
of its space are acute. Going beyond the models of Snowden [73] and Westrum
[76], a more accurate analysis of the Fukushima crisis will help to formalize and
theorize trajectories and spaces necessary for entry into resilience by paying greater
attention to the details of how operations unfolded.
6 Human and Organizational Factors of Entry
into Resilience in an Organization
Many models [15, 18, 32, 65, 69, 74, 75] describe the response of organizations to
disruption at all orders of magnitude. Most rely on a call for strategic and operational, or even financial resources. Some also examine the safety management
system and attempt to determine if a system is resilient or not. Although these
contributions are clearly important, in our view they overlook the dynamic character of the resilience process. In fact, there are very few models that describe the
mechanisms and determinants through which resilience emerges in response to a
traumatic event.
Two key processes in the mobilization of resilience can be cited: the reconfiguration of resources and their mobilization [77].
Resilience may emerge when “resources are sufficiently robust (…) or rapid”
[68] to be able to slow down and counteract the negative effects of a severely
degraded environment. A key concept that quickly emerges is the “conservation of
resources”. According to the theory of the same name (Conservation of Resources,
COR) [78], stress emerges when resources are limited, lost or when individuals
cannot replenish them despite significant effort [68]. COR theory argues that actors
must invest in resources to guard against the loss of other resources. In some ways,
entry into resilience makes sense in this context: it makes it possible to anticipate
the loss of valuable resources and thus curb fears of a runaway situation that could
lead to the loss of the system itself.
In terms of resource mobilization, the work of Powley [79] on the concept of
“resilience activation” is particularly interesting. Entry into resilience is established
as a result of three mechanisms that follow each other in chronological order.
Resilience is activated during a critical period. Its smooth operation implies first and
foremost “liminal suspension”, which in turn activates “compassionate witnessing”
and then “relational redundancy”. It is in these conditions that a resilient organization is created.
12
F. Guarnieri
bureaucratic culture (notably embodied in the relationship between TEPCO and
Japanese political powers), to a generative culture that enables the organization in
crisis to activate resilience in the best possible conditions [76]. It should be noted
that this argument refers more to general boundaries than a definition sensu stricto
of measurable organizational boundaries.
In summary, the questions of the path for entry into resilience and the definition
of its space are acute. Going beyond the models of Snowden [73] and Westrum
[76], a more accurate analysis of the Fukushima crisis will help to formalize and
theorize trajectories and spaces necessary for entry into resilience by paying greater
attention to the details of how operations unfolded.
6 Human and Organizational Factors of Entry
into Resilience in an Organization
Many models [15, 18, 32, 65, 69, 74, 75] describe the response of organizations to
disruption at all orders of magnitude. Most rely on a call for strategic and operational, or even financial resources. Some also examine the safety management
system and attempt to determine if a system is resilient or not. Although these
contributions are clearly important, in our view they overlook the dynamic character of the resilience process. In fact, there are very few models that describe the
mechanisms and determinants through which resilience emerges in response to a
traumatic event.
Two key processes in the mobilization of resilience can be cited: the reconfiguration of resources and their mobilization [77].
Resilience may emerge when “resources are sufficiently robust (…) or rapid”
[68] to be able to slow down and counteract the negative effects of a severely
degraded environment. A key concept that quickly emerges is the “conservation of
resources”. According to the theory of the same name (Conservation of Resources,
COR) [78], stress emerges when resources are limited, lost or when individuals
cannot replenish them despite significant effort [68]. COR theory argues that actors
must invest in resources to guard against the loss of other resources. In some ways,
entry into resilience makes sense in this context: it makes it possible to anticipate
the loss of valuable resources and thus curb fears of a runaway situation that could
lead to the loss of the system itself.
In terms of resource mobilization, the work of Powley [79] on the concept of
“resilience activation” is particularly interesting. Entry into resilience is established
as a result of three mechanisms that follow each other in chronological order.
Resilience is activated during a critical period. Its smooth operation implies first and
foremost “liminal suspension”, which in turn activates “compassionate witnessing”
and then “relational redundancy”. It is in these conditions that a resilient organization is created.
12
F. Guarnieri